I think that Hebrew scholars probably never really had a problem with context being used for how long a period was meant by the word yom, just as we interpret the English word day in context. As far as I can determine virtually all online discussion on the matter is in terms of creationism, with the majority of it being at YEC sites taking the position of a 24-hour day. The remaining sites appear to largely be "old earth" orientated and argue for using context. Apparently it is basically a moot point for those not involved in the debate about creationism (of one sort or another).

I agree with Old Earth Creationists that evolution and the age of the earth are independent of each other. Yes, I am aware that Hutton's ideas influenced Darwin, but Hutton himself did not address evolution. The concept that the earth was quite old was coming to be accepted by geologists before organic evolution came to hold sway in the scientific community.

I'm not sure that you caught my point. The only context that makes since for the word "yom" is a 24 hour day in the creation account. If there were more to the Creation story, I am very sure that God would of added more. To the best of my knowledge, Hebrew scholars agree that "yom" accounts to a 24 hour day in the creation account.

Geologists can pretend that they know the age of the Earth, but they have no idea. The numerous ways that they measure the Earth's age is inaccurate. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the geologic column that secular Geologists leave out. And Scientists do not understand that the speed of light has variables in space yet.

I'm not sure that you caught my point. The only context that makes since for the word "yom" is a 24 hour day in the creation account. If there were more to the Creation story, I am very sure that God would of added more. To the best of my knowledge, Hebrew scholars agree that "yom" accounts to a 24 hour day in the creation account.

Geologists can pretend that they know the age of the Earth, but they have no idea. The numerous ways that they measure the Earth's age is inaccurate. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the geologic column that secular Geologists leave out. And Scientists do not understand that the speed of light has variables in space yet.

Exactly. Also we can talk about a day as in "Back in my Father's day" or "Back in the day when"..... (basically back in that time or those days) but it's all about context and it is evident from Genesis that God is using "day" to mean 24 hours. He talks about morning and evening after He divided the light and the darkness. We have to remember too that plants/trees need the sunlight. So there could not have been some long extended period of night/darkness.

When evening came and morning came again, He then talks about the "second day".

I'm not sure that you caught my point. The only context that makes since for the word "yom" is a 24 hour day in the creation account. If there were more to the Creation story, I am very sure that God would of added more. To the best of my knowledge, Hebrew scholars agree that "yom" accounts to a 24 hour day in the creation account.

Geologists can pretend that they know the age of the Earth, but they have no idea. The numerous ways that they measure the Earth's age is inaccurate. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the geologic column that secular Geologists leave out. And Scientists do not understand that the speed of light has variables in space yet.

No, I got your point about 24 hour days (which you have made multiple times) and I had already posted a discussion in a different thread that considers the context in the creation account to mean something other than a 24 hour day in places. You have your opinion, and others have their opinion about this.

A simple way to determine if the days are 12 hours, 24 hours or an indefinite period of time is to examine each of the days and see what the Bible says about the time it took for those days to happen. We will examine each day and see if Genesis indicates which interpretation is correct. In this page, we will consider the text of Genesis only and not rely upon any scientific information, about which we can not be absolutely sure of its accuracy.

12-hour days? Let's look at the first definition of yom - the 12-hour period (from sunrise to sunset). A very casual glance at the text shows that yom could not be referring to daylight only. On the first day, Genesis 1:5 states that there was both daylight and night.2 We can eliminate the "daylight" definition of yom as being consistent with the Genesis text. The days of Genesis must have been longer than 12 hours.

24-hours days - Day 1 Next, let's examine the Genesis days to see if they fit the 24-hour interpretation. Many things happen n the first day. God created the entire universe, including the earth. God also began the period of daylight and night on the earth. Although science tells us that these events took much more than 24 hours, there is nothing in the biblical text that would clearly indicate that the day could not be 24 hours long.3 The 24-hour interpretation passes the test for the first day.

24-hours days - Day 2 On the second day, God separated the waters above the earth from those on the surface of the earth.4 Since there is no timetable listed for this period of time, it could be 24 hours in length. The 24-hour interpretation passes the test for the second day.

24-hours days - Day 3 On the third day, God formed the land out of the seas. There is no time frame given for the formation of the land and seas. Some time after the land was formed, God created the plants:

Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:11)

And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:12)

The text clearly states that the earth "sprouted" the plants (the Hebrew word deshe,5 Strong's #H1877, usually refers to grasses). The Hebrew word dasha,6 (Strong's #H1876) indicates that the plants grew from either seeds or small seedlings in order to have "sprouted." In addition, these plants produced seeds. The Hebrew word here is zera (Strong's #H2233), which is most often translated "descendants." This makes matters very difficult for the 24-hour interpretation. Not only do the plants sprout and grow to maturity, but produce seed or descendants. There are no plants capable of doing this within a 24-hour period of time. Things actually get worse for this interpretation. Genesis 1:12 clearly states that God allowed the earth to bring forth trees that bore fruit. The process by which the earth brings forth trees to the point of bearing fruit takes several years, at minimum. God did not create the trees already bearing fruit. The text states clearly that He allowed the earth to accomplish the process of fruit bearing through natural means. Because the process of the third day requires a minimum period of time of more thanÃ‚Â 24 hours, the Genesis text for the third day clearly falsifies the interpretation that the days of Genesis one are 24-hour periods of time.

24-hours days - Day 6Day 6 is also a problem for the 24-hour interpretation. During this day, God planted a garden in Eden, and caused the garden to sprout and grow. Then God brought all the birds, cattle and wild animals to Adam to name. God put Adam to sleep, took a part of him and formed Eve (Genesis 2:21-22). Adam's response to Eve's creation was "at last," indicating that he thought the day was very long indeed. More information...

Conclusion We are left with only one interpretation for the days of Genesis one. The literal, clearly indicated, meaning of yom for Genesis one must be an unspecified, long period of time. This is why I believe that the day-age Genesis one interpretation is the only biblically sound interpretation for the creation of the world and life on it.

But since you mention it again, please provide a citation that shows that Hebrew scholars consider yom to only mean a 24 hour day in the creation account. I usually creationists interpret it this way.

Geologists do have a good idea about the age of the earth. Some ways of estimating this are more accurate than others, but all point to vast time since its creation.

So what are the inconsistances in the geologic column that secular geologists leave out? Do non-secular geologists leave in such inconsistences in or is it simply that interpretation of such is different?

So what variables about the speed of light do scientists not understand?

No, I got your point about 24 hour days (which you have made multiple times) and I had already posted a discussion in a different thread that considers the context in the creation account to mean something other than a 24 hour day in places.Ã‚Â You have your opinion, and others have their opinion about this.Yom

So I was simply addressing a differnt point coming from your post.

But since you mention it again, please provide a citation that shows that Hebrew scholars consider yom to only mean a 24 hour day in the creation account. I usually creationists interpret it this way.

Geologists do have a good idea about the age of the earth. Some ways of estimating this are more accurate than others, but all point to vast time since its creation.

So what are the inconsistances in the geologic column that secular geologists leave out? Do non-secular geologists leave in such inconsistences in or is it simply that interpretation of such is different?

So what variables about the speed of light do scientists not understand?

I will keep making that point because it affirms what I believe, and that is the game winning point. The points that I made were completely within line and are on topic.

Other people want to have their opinion, that is fine. But it does not mean I can't state mine or debate others about their opinion.(After all this is the old Earth vs Young Earth forum.) If you have an issue with me, take it up with an admin. I'm not going to argue the proper conduct because they make the rules. If there is an issue with my conduct, I'm sure they will let me know.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said it only means 24 hour day. I say that in context, the 24 hour meaning is the only meaning that makes sense in Genesis 1 and 2 in reference to the Creation of the universe and the Earth. I don't know of one Hebrew Scholar that believes that "Yom" in Genesis 1 and 2 means an indefinite period of time in this context.

You don't have to watch the whole thing, it just shows that Ken Ham says the exact same thing to Hugh Ross and Dr. Kaiser.

I am not aware of any accurate dating method that would indicate the age of the Earth. If there is, please enlighten me.

Old Earth Creationists, theistic evolutionists, and evolutionists point out an issue with young earth creation called the "distant starlight problem." The funny thing is, The Big Bang and the age of the universe by their definition has it's own issue, it's called the Horizon Problem. If you aren't familiar with either of these, I will be happy to elaborate. The fact that the speed of light does not work in favor of either theory indicates to me that we likely don't have a grasp of variables of the speed of light in space yet, despite what Scientists say. The Bible has corrected scientists before and I believe it will do so again.

As far as geologic column inconsistencies go. There are dinosaurs that are found that are not buried far underground at all, and there have been foot prints of humans along with the dinosaur fossils. There are trees that are fossilized in the geologic column that are sticking straight up into different stratas. There are fish that are fossilized while eating other fish and dinosaurs that are fossilized while giving birth. Sorry that I have to keep this section short, I forgot that I that you had asked about this but I wanted to get this in before my edit time was up.

I think that Hebrew scholars probably never really had a problem with context being used for how long a period was meant by the word yom, just as we interpret the English word day in context.

It is very hard to find a Hebrew scholar who doesn't recognize Genesis 1 as a literal account. James Barr was a perfect witness for YEC because he had no stake in the YEC vs OEC debate, he was a non-practicing Jew and highly regarded scholar of his time. He wrote:

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

You are correct that 'yom' can mean a long period of time, just as day can in the English language (eg. back in my father's day). Just like in our language, the context tells us the meaning. Every time throughout the Bible when day "yom" is used with day and night, morning/evening, or an ordinal, OEC agree it always means a literal day, except of course in Genesis 1. The author made the context very clear by using ALL of these qualifiers to make it very clear the days were literal 24-hours.

1) Since you believe in millions of years of death, disease, and suffering before Adam, how do you explain all those verses that say that death came into the world as a result of Adam's sin? Jesus called death an enemy, why would we he allow millions of years of it?

2) How do you explain the end of Genesis chapter 1 where God said everything he had created was "very good"?

Also, as per my prior post to Geode, scholars who can actually speak Hebrew fluently, unlike Deem and Hugh Ross, overwhelmingly believe Genesis 1 was written as a historical account consisting of 24-hour days.

1) Since you believe in millions of years of death, disease, and suffering before Adam, how do you explain all those verses that say that death came into the world as a result of Adam's sin? Jesus called death an enemy, why would we he allow millions of years of it?

2) How do you explain the end of Genesis chapter 1 where God said everything he had created was "very good"?

Also, as per my prior post to Geode, scholars who can actually speak Hebrew fluently, unlike Deem and Hugh Ross, overwhelmingly believe Genesis 1 was written as a historical account consisting of 24-hour days.

Fred

Hi Fred,

The truth is I haven't figured it out. The point you made several years ago about how liberal churches take liberty with scripture and it shows in their doctrine, H*mos*xual marriage, abortion...., really hit home. You have to take God and his Word seriously or you have nothing to stand upon. So my position on an Old Earth is not firmly entrenched and I am working through it.

Here are some things that brought to Old Earth Creationism:

1. The original Bible answer man Walter Martin Ph.D (Southern Baptist professor). I was a new believer and listened to his show on the way home from work and he earned my trust. He had amazing command of Scripture. He stated that day was not a literal day and that God did not need rest. Rest was an allegory, so why couldn't day be in the same narrative explaining a unique event?

2. Time: There is so many time indicators that show the universe, earth and life creation all had a significant amount of time. In other words, the evidence looks like creation took more than 6 days. Also the fossil record really bugs me. IMO it does not support either the YEC or the evolutionist point of view.

3. Creation was a unique event: The day as a bench mark of time really does not make sense to me without a moon and the sun to mark time.

In any case my Old Earth position are not hard and I can be persuaded.

I will keep making that point because it affirms what I believe, and that is the game winning point. The points that I made were completely within line and are on topic.

Yes, your points were all on topic and I am fairly sure that you will continue to make the point about yom being defined as meaning a 24 hour day in the creation account in Genesis. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think it has won any game as of yet, since other interpretations still have a basis in logical argument as well.

Other people want to have their opinion, that is fine. But it does not mean I can't state mine or debate others about their opinion.(After all this is the old Earth vs Young Earth forum.) If you have an issue with me, take it up with an admin. I'm not going to argue the proper conduct because they make the rules. If there is an issue with my conduct, I'm sure they will let me know.

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know why you are making this comment as I never said that you did not have a right to your opinion or a right to state it here on this forum. I also did not say anything about your conduct being a problem or against any rules.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said it only means 24 hour day. I say that in context, the 24 hour meaning is the only meaning that makes sense in Genesis 1 and 2 in reference to the Creation of the universe and the Earth. I don't know of one Hebrew Scholar that believes that "Yom" in Genesis 1 and 2 means an indefinite period of time in this context.

I think my comment rather accurately referenced your belief about 24 hour days in Genesis. I talked about 24 hour days considered in the context of Ã¢â‚¬Å“the creation accountÃ¢â‚¬Â and you talk about the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Creation of the universe and the EarthÃ¢â‚¬Â in Genesis 1 and 2. Are you making a distinction between Ã¢â‚¬Å“the creation accountÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“Genesis 1 and 2Ã¢â‚¬Â that I do not understand?

You don't have to watch the whole thing, it just shows that Ken Ham says the exact same thing to Hugh Ross and Dr. Kaiser.

But you seem to be supporting the point I was attempting to make in my last post, that I have only seen creationists make this case for a 24 hour day in the context of the creation account. You now link a prominent young earth creationist, Ken Ham holding to this opinion in a piece that appears to only cite other creationist / evangelical Christian sources and none from Hebrew scholars.

I am not aware of any accurate dating method that would indicate the age of the Earth. If there is, please enlighten me.

Despite the creationist claims to the contrary, radiometric methods of dating deliver consistent results with a fairly narrow range of accuracy when sampling and lab work is done to proper standards. Using the same methods to date meteorites provides additional dates to supplement terrestrial samples.

Old Earth Creationists, theistic evolutionists, and evolutionists point out an issue with young earth creation called the "distant starlight problem." The funny thing is, The Big Bang and the age of the universe by their definition has it's own issue, it's called the Horizon Problem. If you aren't familiar with either of these, I will be happy to elaborate. The fact that the speed of light does not work in favor of either theory indicates to me that we likely don't have a grasp of variables of the speed of light in space yet, despite what Scientists say. The Bible has corrected scientists before and I believe it will do so again.

I think the Ã¢â‚¬Å“distant starlight problemÃ¢â‚¬Â is something that does not exist. I do not hold to a variable speed of light as being correct. I have read about the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Horizon ProblemÃ¢â‚¬Â but as the physics involved in cosmology is not an area in which I am well versed, I have not pondered it much. I also do not believe that the Bible has Ã¢â‚¬Å“corrected scientistsÃ¢â‚¬Â in any way and since it is not a science book I doubt any Ã¢â‚¬Å“correctionsÃ¢â‚¬Â are likely to come forth.

As far as geologic column inconsistencies go. There are dinosaurs that are found that are not buried far underground at all, and there have been foot prints of humans along with the dinosaur fossils. There are trees that are fossilized in the geologic column that are sticking straight up into different stratas. There are fish that are fossilized while eating other fish and dinosaurs that are fossilized while giving birth. Sorry that I have to keep this section short, I forgot that I that you had asked about this but I wanted to get this in before my edit time was up.

Nothing you have listed here is at all inconsistent with the concept of the geologic column except the item about foot prints of humans found with dinosaur fossils. Finding dinosaurs at any depth from the surface down to thousands of feet in the subsurface is entirely consistent with modern geological principles upon which it is based. So-called polystrate trees are explained as a problem using creationist strawman arguments that are invalid. The actual fossils are quite consistent with mainstream thoughts about sedimentation. Sudden death is witnessed today in current environments and there is no reason to think it has not happened at various times in the past, and since it occurs now without the need for a worldwide catastrophe, there is not a problem in finding animals in various forms of activity when they died in the fossil record. The eruption of Pompeii certainly preserved humans and other animals in various activities as fossils.

The one item that would be inconsistent with the prevailing ideas about fossil assemblages in the geologic column would be to find evidence of dinosaurs and men living together. If you are thinking about the Paluxy tracks in Texas, many creationists are backing away from claims made there. The AIG site includes this as an argument that creationists shouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t use. Since you are using Ken Ham as an authority earlier, it is interesting to note that Ken Ham co-founded this site, and he personally has criticized some of the claims made about the prints. Apparently it has been shown that some of the prints were faked, and others simply are not what they are claimed. The pictures I have seen are certainly not at all compelling. It might be best for YECs to jettison this as evidence. for it may be best consigned to a place next to the Piltdown Man. But there are threads on this forum where all of this has been discussed in some detail. The other things you bring up are also in past threads.

Proverbs 3:5 is a verse that anyone who tries to rationalize The Bible on this level needs to have a look at. I believe it is very dangerous to start with the fallacy of humans and then twisting what The Bible says to fit our view of the world. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and is our ultimate source of authority.

I apologize, your last post came off as rude to me. If you weren't rude then I was wrong about your attitude.

Chapter 2 of Genesis serves to reiterate some parts of the Creation account in more detail. I believe "yom" is used there as well.

I posted the link because Ken Ham can't think of any Hebrew Scholars that disagree that "Yom" in the creation account means 24 hour day. Dr. Kaiser didn't mention any Hebrew Scholar that agreed with him either.

Radiometric dating makes too many assumptions to be accurate. Scientists also keep using the dating method until they get a answer that they deem satisfactory. If they don't like the age what the dating method comes up with, they keep doing it until they get an answer that is "right." If it is accurate, why would they need to use radiometric dating more than once on the same object?

Astrophysics can be quite confusing even to those who study it. Since you are aware of the Horizon problem then I don't really need to explain it. I agree that the distant starlight problem does not exist. So I guess we have nothing to discuss here.

I will go ahead and show some examples of The Bible being constant with science.

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; Genesis 22:17

The Bible acknowledges that each star is unique, despite how they appear in the sky.

As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. Jeremiah 33:22

There are countless numbers of stars in space. The Bible acknowledges this.

"Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name:" Jeremiah 31:35

The Bible acknowledges precise movements in the universe, including how tides work.

I'm not sure that you caught my point. The only context that makes since for the word "yom" is a 24 hour day in the creation account. If there were more to the Creation story, I am very sure that God would of added more. To the best of my knowledge, Hebrew scholars agree that "yom" accounts to a 24 hour day in the creation account.

Geologists can pretend that they know the age of the Earth, but they have no idea. The numerous ways that they measure the Earth's age is inaccurate. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the geologic column that secular Geologists leave out. And Scientists do not understand that the speed of light has variables in space yet.

I'm not arguing that 'yom' means a 24 hr day.

I'm arguing that while Gen. 1 uses days (as in 6) for creation, Gen. 2:4 says 'day', and uses it in the context of 'generations'. So then day in Gen. 2:4 means generations but how many generations?

If creation happened in six, 24 hr days, then Gen. 2:4 would have said the same thing but instead, 2:4 refers to creation happening on one day, which meant 'generations'. This was not one 24 hr day and even if it was it still debunks the idea of a 6 day creation!

I'm arguing that while Gen. 1 uses days (as in 6) for creation, Gen. 2:4 says 'day', and uses it in the context of 'generations'. So then day in Gen. 2:4 means generations but how many generations?

If creation happened in six, 24 hr days, then Gen. 2:4 would have said the same thing but instead, 2:4 refers to creation happening on one day, which meant 'generations'. This was not one 24 hr day and even if it was it still debunks the idea of a 6 day creation!

If it were that easy, there would be no YECs. What Hebrew Scholar can you cite that agrees with you on this matter?

Genesis 2 is a more detailed creation account of Genesis 1. When you look at the way the Hebrew word "Yom" is used in Genesis 2. It has a number in front of it, and it qualifies it as a 24 hour day. The word "toledot" is used for generations(Or account) of Adam. It does not show any quantity of the length of time.

If it were that easy, there would be no YECs. What Hebrew Scholar can you cite that agrees with you on this matter?

What was the word that Jesus used to refer to the scholars of his day!!

Genesis 2 is a more detailed creation account of Genesis 1. When you look at the way the Hebrew word "Yom" is used in Genesis 2. It has a number in front of it, and it qualifies it as a 24 hour day. The word "toledot" is used for generations(Or account) of Adam. It does not show any quantity of the length of time.

You can check out this link for more information

There's nothing to check out. Gen. 1 and Gen. 2:4 cannot be contradictions because God would never contradict Himself.

Gen. 2:4 clarifies that the word day is not meant as a literal 24 hr period.

Hi Fred, As I stated earlier in the thread, I do not believe that the days are literally 24 hours. I think that they are likely a long period of time... we don't know how long.1) Since you believe in millions of years of death, disease, and suffering before Adam, how do you explain all those verses that say that death came into the world as a result of Adam's sin? Jesus called death an enemy, why would we he allow millions of years of it? I don't believe in death, disease and suffering before Adam, and I do believe in a literal world-wide flood. I guess "Old Earth Creationist" seems to have a different meaning than I originally thought.2) How do you explain the end of Genesis chapter 1 where God said everything he had created was "very good"? It can still be very good. It was simply in existence for a while.

Also, as per my prior post to Geode, scholars who can actually speak Hebrew fluently, unlike Deem and Hugh Ross, overwhelmingly believe Genesis 1 was written as a historical account consisting of 24-hour days. It seems to me that scholars also often say things that cast doubt on the Bible. I prefer to listen to the leadings of the Holy Spirit.

In any case my Old Earth position are not hard and I can be persuaded.Ã‚Â

Dr. Ross has published a book entitled Creation and Time, which documents in detail what first century Jewish scholars and the early Christian church fathers said regarding their interpretation of creation chronology (5). Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. The evidence presented in Creation and Time is both overwhelming and well documented (all references are given).

1) Since you believe in millions of years of death, disease, and suffering before Adam, how do you explain all those verses that say that death came into the world as a result of Adam's sin? Jesus called death an enemy, why would we he allow millions of years of it?

2) How do you explain the end of Genesis chapter 1 where God said everything he had created was "very good"?

Also, as per my prior post to Geode, scholars who can actually speak Hebrew fluently, unlike Deem and Hugh Ross, overwhelmingly believe Genesis 1 was written as a historical account consisting of 24-hour days.

Fred

Hi Fred,

Rich Deem states that when Gen 1:24-25 talk about he beast of the earth (chayah) it is referring to a carnivore. A carnivore is a beast that survives off of the death of others.

Here are some things that brought to Old Earth Creationism:1. The original Bible answer man Walter Martin Ph.D (Southern Baptist professor).Ã‚Â I was a new believer and listened to his show on the way home from work and he earned my trust.Ã‚Â He had amazing command of Scripture.Ã‚Â He stated that day was not a literal day and that God did not need rest.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Rest was an allegory, so why couldn't day be in the same narrative explaining a unique event?

My favorite line of Walter Martin's was when Jehovah Witnesses came to his door. Boy did they pick the wrong house to go to. He said "I knew you were coming". They asked "How did you know, did your neighbors call and let you know?" He replied, "No. I knew because the Bible says that false prophets will come calling!"

Ok, back to the topic at hand. For starters, the overwhelmingly vast majority of Hebrew language experts disagrees with Deem and Ross. So in order to believe that day is not literal, you have to trust untrained, non-Hebrew experts who clearly are trying to mend scripture to match their extra-Biblical view of the world. No one else in the world believes Genesis days are long eras of time except Old Earth Christians. Doesn't it bother you at least some, that Genesis 1 is the only place in the Bible where Old Earthers such as Deem and Hugh Ross question the meaning of day when used with an ordinal, or evening and morning, day and night? Everywhere else in scripture day is used like this they readily agree it means a literal day. God could not have possibly been any more clear that it was a literal day. God even reminds the reader of this in Exodus 20:11, where God tells us it established the pattern for our work week.

2. Time:Ã‚Â There is so many time indicators that show the universe, earth and life creation all had a significant amount of time.Ã‚Â In other words, the evidence looks like creation took more than 6 days.Ã‚Â Also the fossil record really bugs me.Ã‚Â IMO it does not support either the YEC or the evolutionist point of view.Ã‚Â

Would you admit that if you totally ignored all outside influence, and only used the Bible as a source, that OEC would not even come into play? Regarding the fossil record, it sounds like by your statement that you think it supports an OEC viewpoint. Yet time and time again we find fossils of extant organisms showing they haven't changed even in the slightest amount. The most recent was a few months ago reported in PhysOrg of a shrimp supposedly 360 million years old that was identical to a modern shrimp. The fossil record is actually powerful evidence for a global flood, another fact of Biblical history Deem and Ross deny because it would have ripped up the geologic column they have put their faith in. The fossil record also supports a recent earth. For example, why is it that many fossils, especially those that still have soft tissue such as T-rex dinosaur bones, ALWAYS have C-14 in them? C-14 decays into Nitrogen, and after 50,000 years there should be no detectable C-14. Yet we find it all the time, in oil, gas, coal, diamonds, fossils, etc.

3.Ã‚Â Creation was a unique event:Ã‚Â The day as a bench mark of time really does not make sense to me without a moon and the sun to mark time.

That's why Deem and Ross try to convince their followers that God created the earth/moon/stars on day one instead of day 4! Doesn't this require much more calisthenics of the mind? It certainly requires a very radical interpretation of Genesis 1 that is contrary to the plainly written text (see Proverbs 8:9). Since God is light, couldn't his light have been the source of day vs night in the first 3 days of Creation?

In any case my Old Earth position are not hard and I can be persuaded.Ã‚Â

Well, I wish I knew the magic sauce that would bring you to the YEC camp. I was OEC until age 30, and probably the verses that stirred me the most were Psalms 118:8 and 1 Cor 1:20. But it was also all the evidence I learned about, that I was never taught in school, that contradicted an Old Earth. Many Christians I have talked to said that ultimately it was the death before sin problem that convinced them. I would also point out that Jesus refers to the first chapters of Genesis more than any other book of the OT, and he treats it as real history, such as when He said in Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female ." Yet another verse Ross and Deem have to mark out of their Bible.

Rich DeemÃ‚Â states that when Gen 1:24-25 talk about he beast of the earth (chayah) it is referring to a carnivore.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â A carnivore is a beast that survives off of the death of others.

Bruce

Well, God actually does mention what kind of food they eat, it certainly contradicts Deem's viewpoint. Just a few verses later:

Gen 1:29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

Only after the flood did God permit the eating of meat: "Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Genesis 9.

Another question: According to Genesis, it was the fall of man that brought about thorns (Gen 3:18). If the fossil record existed before the fall, how do Deem and Ross explain thorns in the fossil record?

What was the word that Jesus used to refer to the scholars of his day!!

That depends upon who He was talking to. DO you want to be more specific?

There's nothing to check out. Gen. 1 and Gen. 2:4 cannot be contradictions because God would never contradict Himself.

They are not contradicting each other. Yom in Genesis One means literal twenty-four hour periods; Yom in Genesis 2:4 means a period of time (as in the years of my father etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) and תּלדה תּולדה (generations) within the context of that sentence paragraph and chapter (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) means the Ã¢â‚¬Å“history ofÃ¢â‚¬Â, or more precisely the Ã¢â‚¬Å“history of the birth of this universe, Earth, Man, and all creation".

You really need to quit taking a single word and misinterpreting by ripping it out of the context of its surroundings to make it mean what you personally want it to mean, simply to try and prove your point.

The word generations can mean:

1- Descent

2- Family

3- History

4- Birth

In the context of Genesis 2:4, it means Ã¢â‚¬Å“HistoryÃ¢â‚¬Â, or more succinctly"the history of our creation". Quit with your quibbling over words that you have to misinterpret in order to make them mean Ã¢â‚¬Å“what you want them to mean".

Gen. 2:4 clarifies that the word day is not meant as a literal 24 hr period.

No, it does notÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ It does nothing of the sort. And all of your equivocations will not change that. Purposefully misdirecting or misleading by attempting to change the meaning of a word is Ã¢â‚¬Å“equivocatingÃ¢â‚¬Â in this case. And, in fact, is how the serpent deceived Eve (and therefore all of Mankind) in Genesis Chapter three.

Also, you have attempted to do this elsewhere (if memory serves). I would suggest you cease such tactics here and now.

In fact, I've look further into your equivocations dmwessel, and this is a warning! In this thread alone you have pursued this tactic twice! And, even after attempts to show your mistakes (and folly) you continued.